Posts by adrianxw

41) Message boards : Number crunching : Work unit failures. (Message 101535) Posted 26 Apr 2021 by adrianxw Post: I see my work units that were in that state, that I can still see on my results page, have been credited now. The credit is a little "odd", ie. it is 388 +/- 1 or 2. This is below, by quite a lot, what I would expect, the other tasks still visible on my results page show upper 400's to lower 500's. Everyone knows, of course, that the credit is not of any use.
42) Message boards : Number crunching : Work unit failures. (Message 101520) Posted 26 Apr 2021 by adrianxw Post: >>> goes wrong after the server So, it is still the case that the work is lost, or do the files still exist for retrying?
43) Message boards : Number crunching : Work unit failures. (Message 101518) Posted 26 Apr 2021 by adrianxw Post: Since yesterday, I've had four work units run for the regular 12 hours I have set for target run time. Each has obviously run their model several times with different random start points. Each, at completion, has errored out with a status of 0x00000000. 48 hours of work dumped. No new tasks set on both systems. 1372319356 1226215916 3117659 25 Apr 2021, 6:25:50 UTC 26 Apr 2021, 12:33:06 UTC Error while computing 43,766.03 42,977.44 --- Rosetta v4.20 windows_x86_64 1372042794 1226012455 3161065 24 Apr 2021, 14:39:12 UTC 25 Apr 2021, 20:18:07 UTC Error while computing 43,119.99 43,083.17 388.00 Rosetta v4.20 windows_x86_64 1371978435 1225956023 3161065 24 Apr 2021, 10:46:43 UTC 25 Apr 2021, 14:10:27 UTC Error while computing 43,156.42 43,092.81 388.00 Rosetta v4.20 windows_x86_64 1371983541 1225891749 3161065 24 Apr 2021, 9:25:48 UTC 25 Apr 2021, 13:39:11 UTC Error while computing 43,110.57 43,042.69 387.00 Rosetta v4.20 windows_x86_64
44) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home (Message 101439) Posted 22 Apr 2021 by adrianxw Post: >>> These tasks? Err, yes, err, obviously... >>> If so, the task logs appear to show that attempting to extract one input file each from the database failed, probably because they weren't in the database. Indeed, it was a problem with Rosetta@home, which is why I mentioned it in the thread called "Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home"...
45) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home (Message 101425) Posted 21 Apr 2021 by adrianxw Post: I've had a couple of work units crash out after 30-40 seconds this afternoon. Exit status 0x00000001.
46) Message boards : Number crunching : 0 new tasks, Rosetta? (Message 99561) Posted 4 Nov 2020 by adrianxw Post: I've seen a couple of references to the sidocktest project. Visiting the site, it lacks any information about who or what is behind the facade. It is for that reason, I did not connect. Is it a respected university lab, is it a small time jerk using the "right sort of words to get people interested" in running their get rich scheme, how can you tell.....
47) Message boards : Technical News : Due to user feedback and an attempt to reduce the load on our servers, we increased the default target run time from 3 to 6 hours, increased job deadlines to 14 days, and added the target cpu runtime option of 2 days (Message 99406) Posted 26 Oct 2020 by adrianxw Post: An observation I have made bothered me. I understand the program generates a random start point, then runs the model to completion. If there is sufficient time left, now knowing the time the model takes on that node, it generates a new random start point and runs again to completion, repeating this until the run time is reached, or at least, running it again would excede the allowed run time. My observation was that if a run of the model fails, ALL the work done in that run is discarded, including, obviously, the earlier, sucessful runs.
48) Message boards : Number crunching : Record days. (Message 99181) Posted 29 Sep 2020 by adrianxw Post: My observation is based on the small table of figures I retrieved from BOINC Stats. The two older entries have, admitedly unsubstatiated but not unreasonable, explanations in the thread here. The size of the remaining variations is quite significant.
49) Message boards : Number crunching : Record days. (Message 99119) Posted 25 Sep 2020 by adrianxw Post: That would make sense. It is interesting that the lower numbers are later. I guess the initial surge of interest in Corona faded somewhat. I guess some crunchers thought they'd done their bit.
50) Message boards : Number crunching : Record days. (Message 97874) Posted 2 Jul 2020 by adrianxw Post: It was a bit of a surprise to me to find the absolute record day and another, long passed, day in the list of top 10 days for the project. I expected to find the entire top ten from this year due to the Covid issue. 2017-01-12 353,527,503 2020-03-31 264,765,612 2020-04-23 229,334,617 2020-05-09 214,895,364 2020-04-26 199,592,394 2020-04-13 199,192,473 2020-04-14 197,691,132 2020-05-06 196,008,444 2016-09-13 195,169,670 2020-04-22 192,162,017 boincstats.com.
51) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Interesting talk of David Baker (Message 97870) Posted 2 Jul 2020 by adrianxw Post: My security software will not allow that to open.
52) Message boards : Number crunching : Upload issue. (Message 97209) Posted 4 Jun 2020 by adrianxw Post: I saw a new BOINC release had been issued. Updated, and all worked again. I guess they had rushed a fix through. Took a while, the upload list was the largest I remember seeing.
53) Message boards : Number crunching : Upload issue. (Message 96962) Posted 31 May 2020 by adrianxw Post: Since yesterday, I have been unable to upload results. The server status says the upload server is running okay.
54) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95308) Posted 24 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: Fair enough, I'll leave it alone. I'm not seeing anything likely to hit the deadline at the moment.
55) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95301) Posted 24 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: The thread has raised a doubt in my mind. I have my preferred run time set to 12 hours. I know the workunit has a model, it generates a random number, and runs the model to completion. It then looks to see how long that took, how long there is left with my preference, and if suitable, generates a new random number and runs the process again, and again, ad finitum, until it decides there is not enough time to run it again, at that point, it ends the work unit. With the urgency of the current situation, I can see the possibility that the first run of the model had a critical result, but that it was not returned for hours whilst the work unit ran with different random start points. Should the preferred runtime be set down, at least temporarily?
56) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95126) Posted 22 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: I'm pretty sure it was Folding that had created the effect I was seeing. When I was investigating it, they told me that I could prohibit F@H using the GPU, but then it would run multithreaded. I looked at it because the GPU on that machine was starting to suffer, arrays of dark spots in distinct rhomboidal shapes over parts of the display, so removed the GPU projects from its portfolio. It is running Rosetta and TN-Grid now.
57) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95124) Posted 22 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: The difference I am seeing is new, I have only seen it recently, and only on one machine, which, coincidently, is the machine I use least. I doubt anything other than BOINC has been run on there for weeks. Use at most is 100% on both, has always been so. <edit> Normally, I do not have a screen/keyboard/mouse on that machine. I moved the gear over there and had a look. I saw Foldig@Home was running on there. I looked at that a while back but decided against it - I deleted it from this machine and THOUGHT I had deleted it from the other. That could be an aspect of the effect I am seeing. </edit>
58) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95119) Posted 22 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: This extended run time is actually getting to be a little bizarre! Looking at my results page, the run times do show this extended run time, up by 50%, but the CPU time does not reflect this, that remains fairly static within the realms of normality. A question that arises therefore, is what are these jobs doing. Useless credit varies wildly of course, always been the case. 1156283316 1040082343 3117659 20 Apr 2020, 23:28:39 UTC 21 Apr 2020, 20:07:56 UTC Completed and validated 43,240.01 42,839.94 633.48 Rosetta v4.15 windows_x86_64 1156260164 1040062029 3161065 20 Apr 2020, 22:52:12 UTC 22 Apr 2020, 2:05:01 UTC Completed and validated 68,470.36 42,776.83 549.05 Rosetta v4.15 windows_x86_64
59) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 95055) Posted 21 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: For information only in case others are worried by this behaviour. It is not just your machine!!! One of my machines, (4GHz i7), has four odd workunits running at the moment. I have 12 hours set for the target run time, and jobs normally finish around that, but I have four jobs running that are going to be well over that. One is already over 18 hours in. The remaining IS decreasing, but not in a very linear way, it jumps up and down for a while, then drops a bit, then up and down again.
60) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta 4.0+ (Message 94361) Posted 13 Apr 2020 by adrianxw Post: The post a couple back about memory, I fully concur. When I build a system, I always try to have at least 2GB per thread.

Previous 20 · Next 20